HowardForums is a discussion board dedicated to mobile phones with over 1,000,000 members and growing!

For your convenience HowardForums is divided into 7 main sections; marketplace, phone manufacturers, carriers, smartphones/PDAs, general phone discussion, buy sell trade and general discussions. Just scroll down to see them!

Only registered members may post questions, contact other members or search our database of over 8 million posts. Why don't you join us today!

In my case, I won't run Speedtest in a weak signal area, since I'm trying to see if I can get a really high speed. And for that same reason, in a great signal area, I'll run it. The drive test data aren't trying to achieve the same results.

I am as likely to run speed test in a place with weak signal as I am in a place with strong signal. That's just me. Apparently different from what you do.

However I am unlikely to run it in a place where I know there is no signal at all. And there you will find the major bias problem in any sort of crowdsourced data for this.... The areas with the worst signal, that is no coverage at all end-up grossly under counted which will skew the data to be faster than it really is on average.

Also, how many more T-Mobile customers run open signal constantly and map coverage vs. Verizon or AT&T customers?

Similar question, how many customers, percentage wise, of any carrier run speedtests? Gun to my head I'd say it's a very small, niche group that even bother to take out their phone and run a test. The vast majority of customers probably "don't know what the hell an Ookla is".

Rootmetrics: And 4th Place Goes To..............

Originally Posted by CircuitSwitched

Correct. But without the booster in these places, my T-Mobile phone would show "No Service" because the signal is too weak for my phone to connect to. The booster generally provides 1-2 bars of usable service in areas where I had none before.

I guess the other aspect is that there may be “No Service” inside the car etc but the longer booster antenna on the roof may pick up a faint signal to boost.

I’ve also found it can add 1-2 bars of signal or between 10 and 30db in real world situations. For me, it mainly helps hold LTE in fringe areas that would otherwise drop to HSPA+ etc. It didn’t provide much help when I had Sprint or Verizon and strangely doesn’t seem to do much for my AT&T signal (maybe a bar?) on my work phone either.

I guess the other aspect is that there may be “No Service” inside the car etc but the longer booster antenna on the roof may pick up a faint signal to boost.

I’ve also found it can add 1-2 bars of signal or between 10 and 30db in real world situations. For me, it mainly helps hold LTE in fringe areas that would otherwise drop to HSPA+ etc. It didn’t provide much help when I had Sprint or Verizon and strangely doesn’t seem to do much for my AT&T signal (maybe a bar?) on my work phone either.

Yea. I’ve got the Drive 4G-X and it adds about 1-2 bars. Average gain has been about 20-30db for me as well.

My car uses a 1 watt AT&T antenna and usually has service when handsets don’t, so I guess it’s the same concept.

The signal is in open air, and the larger antenna on the roof grabs it.

It definitely doesn’t help with Sprint whatsoever, but it has helped Verizon and T-Mobile for me. I’d assume it would be the same with AT&T because it boosts T-Mobile B12 just fine?

Yep that is what I am talking about with Rootmetrics.... Everyone I know does more than 10 text or more for every single phone call. Rootmetrics puts a lot of weight on voice calls but doesn't even test for HD Audio. Yet, Rootmetrics claims their test method is focused on how people use their phones....

For me Data speed is paramount that should carry the most weight in a test for Rootmetric test. I spend more hours using the internet on my phone than anything else by many factors of time. Rootmetrics sure must discount data speed in their overall rating since there is no way T-Mobile would be dead last in their bogus rating with how the weight their results.

T-Mobile's strength is in from moving from the poor network it had in 2014

T-Mobile's network in 2014 wasn't poor in the many places that I used it in. This is just more of your anti- T-Mobile propaganda.

I think you are the only one who thinks that lousy coverage is good

If I had lousy coverage where I use my phone, I wouldn't keep using T-Mobile. But you keep telling your false tale that the expanded coverage has resulted in more profits, when studies like Rootmetrics still hasn't shown any improvement with this "expanded coverage". They specifically stated, "T-Mobile typically performs much better in metropolitan markets than it does at state or national levels, and that was again the case in the second half of 2017. "

Your claim that T-Mobile's profits resulted from the areas where it performs most poorly doesn't make any logical sense.

Also, I am sticking to the facts. The expanded coverage is what differentiates T-Mobile from bring a Sprint.

Differentiates them how? By T-Mobile finishing behind Sprint in this study? If the expanded coverage was so good they would've finished in front of Sprint not behind them.

The T-Mobile network of 2014 was poor as it didn't meet the needs of the vast majority of people.

No, it might have been poor for you because it didn't cover the desolate areas that you seem to frequent. Don't try to claim that your needs are the same as the "vast majority". It's simply false.

where the expanded coverage is listed first as the reason for profitability.

As I just posted in another thread, the quarterly report says, the reason for their growth last year was: "customers continue to respond by switching to the Un-carrier. Customers are loving Un-carrier benefits such as Netflix On Us and simple rate plans like T-Mobile ONE with taxes and fees included. In 2017, more than 5 million customers joined T-Mobile for the 4th year in a row - all thanks to consumer-friendly offers and an Un-carrier philosophy that puts customers first. "

It's the un-carrier benefits that they state are causing the growth. Not coverage in the boonies.

The additional coverage is the only reason I'm on T-Mobile. Before 2014, I would have never considered T-Mobile as the coverage was pathetic. Sprint covered the interstates better than T-Mobile at that time. The areas between metro areas were often forgotten. Fast forward to today and they are growing faster than ever. Yes the uncarrier events do add people but the biggest thing is coverage...people, now more than ever, don't want to feel disconnected. Part of not having that happen is picking a carrier that has a map painted as covered.

side note: When I moved to T-Mobile, Kansas was not well covered but they had plans to add the coverage. Unlike Sprint, the carrier I came from, T-Mobile actually executes the plans they have.

The additional coverage is the only reason I'm on T-Mobile. Before 2014, I would have never considered T-Mobile as the coverage was pathetic. Sprint covered the interstates better than T-Mobile at that time. The areas between metro areas were often forgotten. Fast forward to today and they are growing faster than ever. Yes the uncarrier events do add people but the biggest thing is coverage...people, now more than ever, don't want to feel disconnected. Part of not having that happen is picking a carrier that has a map painted as covered.

side note: When I moved to T-Mobile, Kansas was not well covered but they had plans to add the coverage. Unlike Sprint, the carrier I came from, T-Mobile actually executes the plans they have.

Exactly. Where it counts, the bullet items in their reports on profitability. it is no surprise that they list coverage first. Coverage, of course, means a lot more to most people compared to, say, the average LTE speed increasing from one two-digit number to another two-digit number.

And if people are drawn in by "un-carrier initiatives", they won't stay unless there is coverage.

The additional coverage is the only reason I'm on T-Mobile. Before 2014, I would have never considered T-Mobile as the coverage was pathetic. Sprint covered the interstates better than T-Mobile at that time. The areas between metro areas were often forgotten. Fast forward to today and they are growing faster than ever. Yes the uncarrier events do add people but the biggest thing is coverage...people, now more than ever, don't want to feel disconnected. Part of not having that happen is picking a carrier that has a map painted as covered.

side note: When I moved to T-Mobile, Kansas was not well covered but they had plans to add the coverage. Unlike Sprint, the carrier I came from, T-Mobile actually executes the plans they have.

I fired AT&T in 2011 and went with MetroPCS that was better in South East Florida than AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile at the time. First time I could sit inside the house and make a phone call was with MetroPCS after leaving Sprint, Cingular & AT&T. I was very worried in 2013 when T-Mobile acquires MetroPCS since AT&T did a bad job with Cingular at least where I live since my service got worse with AT&T. However, T-Mobile did a great job of moving CDMA customers from Metro to T-Mobile.